UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 17

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:21:48 - 0300
Archived: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:55:03 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:26:50 +0100
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:44:22 - 0300
>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:15:21 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

<snip>

>>>As I pointed out to Jimmie Robinson privately there is in fact
>>>one assumption being made here: The assumption that Newhouse did
>>>indeed hold the camera steady and allow the objects to pass
>>>through the FOV.

>>>This was the very assumption that the Robertson Panel called in
>>>question, suggesting that someone trying hard not to pan with
>>>the action might have unconsciously oversompensated and panned
>>>_against_ the action, thus inflating the apparent angular rate.
>>>Newhouse's assertion that he did not do this may (or may not) be
>>>a good one, but it does not unfortunately have the status of
>>>"scientific fact" in the sense claimed, so it isn't "as simple
>>>as that". It may be possible to calculate some plausible limit
>>>on the amount of angular error that could arise from such
>>>overcompensation, but I haven't seen this argument explicitly
>>>tackled anywhere. Has anyone else?

>>I have the movie UFO here and in the film Newhouse says he held
>>the camera steady and let a single object fly out of frame -
>>and that's shown. Why would he lie about that?

>I don't know if anyone has ever alleged that he did. I'm
>certainly not saying that. As I understand the proposition, it
>is that Newhouse was watching through the viewfinder and
>unconsciously panned the camera opposite to the object motion
>when trying to hold the camera still. I can see how that might
>happen. I can also see that there are arguments that it probably
>didn't happen (especially as Newhouse did this three times). But
>the point at issue was Mr Robinson's claim that the rigid
>stillness of Newhouse's camera is an absolute "scientific fact"
>leaving no room for conjecture.

>This is untrue. It is not a "scientific fact" but a witness
>report. Along with his descriptions of the objects as they
>appeared before the film sequence (B - 29 sized saucers) it is a
>report that one wouldn't want to dismiss without good reason,
>but for someone asked to analyse the film on its own merits it
>must be disappointing that this crucial measure of angular rate
>- the measure that makes the difference between possible
>unresolved gulls and definite unknowns - depends on a witness
>statement.

>Mr Robinson's chain of calculation (which incidentally includes
>a factor 6 error in the angular rate and neglects Robert M L
>Baker's conclusion that the 2 deg/sec rate  - not 12 deg/sec -
>is the average of a range of rates between 0.6 and 4.0 degs/sec
>interpreted as camera jitter) definitely _is_ based on an
>assumption, which needs to be demonstrated first before the
>calculation can be said to lead to "scientific fact" beyond
>argument.

>>It should be easy enough these days to determine
>>if the camera moved.

>I don't know if this can be done or not, but I definitely agree
>with you that it should be done if possible.

Hi Martin,

I wasn't saying that he was accused of lying. Lie was perhaps
the wrong word, should have used something like, why would he
get something like a pan as opposed to a steady shot, wrong.
This guy was an experienced camera man yet the suits [not
professional cameramen, BTW] sitting around the table - second
guessing him [with an agenda] during the Robertson panel just
have to suggest that and the whole thing is in doubt.

To my mind if he said he held the camera steady then unless he
was in a high wing, take the man's word for it. It just seems to
me that we go to extremes to vette the witnesses, deny any
professionalism they have, any experience they have and any
intelligence they have to sink a sighting and lets face it the
Robertson panel had an agenda the same as Condon.

I've been viewing this film for over 50 years and never once did
they ever look like seagulls - something else I've see on a
daily basis for 59 years. Nothing in that film suggests seagulls
other than an overactive but out of the loop imagination.

The speed estimates are off. In close enough to mimic high speed
and they would be plainly visible as birds. Far enough away to
put a bird - as suspect - in doubt and the speed is ridiculously
high for a seagull, unless they are diving or swooping and they
aren't doing that as evidenced in the film and even then - if
they were - it probably would not be fast enough.

The area of the gull's wing in flight should put this theory to
rest. It's too large to ignore it [a 14 inch long gull has a
wingspan (high aspect ratio wing) greater than 5 feet] much
greater than the area [topside/bottomside] of the birds body
from any angles except fore and aft. They would have to be
awfully low for the wings to begin to blend in with their bodies
and even then not flapping - OR banking around you in a glide.
When in cruise they flap a lot but not very fast. So where's the
increase and decrease in the reflectivity of the body when the
wings are flapping in the Tremonton film? I can't see it.

My take anyway.

best,

Don Ledger



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com